The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My Public Portal About01 January 13, 2003 Technical AdvisoryTECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMIT MEETING AGENDA* 062880 TIME: DATE: LOCATION: 10:00 A.M. January 13, 2003 Records Banning City Hall Civic Center, Large Conference Room 99 East Ramsey Street Banning, CA *By request, agenda and minutes may be available in alternative format; i.e. large print, tape. COMMITTEE MEMBERS Bill Bayne, City of Cathedral City Tom Boyd, City of Riverside Bill Brunet, City of Blythe Dick Cromwell, SunLine Transit Louis Flores, Ca!trans District 08 Mike Gow, City of Hemet Mark Greenwood, City of Palm Desert Terry Hagen, City of Indio Jerry Hanson, City of Desert Hot Springs Bruce Harry, City of Rancho Mirage Bill Hughes, City of Temecula George Johnson, County of Riverside Tim Jonasson, City of LaQuinta Elroy Kiepke, City of Calimesa Eldon Lee, City of Coachella Anne Palatino, RTA John Licata, City of Corona Bob Mohler, City of Palm Springs Habib Motlagh, Cities of Perris, San Jacinto, Canyon Lake Craig Neustaedter, City of Moreno Valley Ray O' Donnell, City of Lake Elsinore Kahono Oei, City of Banning Juan Perez, County of Riverside Joe Schenk, City of Norco Ken Seumalo, City of Murrieta Ruthanne Taylor Berger, WRCOG Allyn Waggle, CVAG Tim Wassil, City of Indian Wells John Wilder, City of Beaumont Cathy Bechtel, Director Transportation Planning & Policy Development 3(1.2 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTA TION COMMISSION TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA* *Actions may be taken on any item listed on the agenda. TIME: 10:00 A.M. DATE: January 13, 2003 LOCATION: Banning City Hall Civic Center, Large Conference Room 99 East Ramsey Street Banning, CA 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. SELF -INTRODUCTION 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - November 18, 2002 4. PUBLIC COMMENTS (This is for comments on items not listed on the agenda. Comments relating to an item on the agenda will be taken when the item is before the Committee.) 5. ELECTION OF OFFICERS 6. 2002 STIP - STATE BUDGET IMPACT (Attachment) 7. ITS REGIONAL ARCHITECTURAL PLAN (Attachment) 8. WRCOG GOODS MOVEMENT STUDY PHASE II 9. CETAP UPDATE 10. 2004 RTP UPDATE - PROJECT/IMPROVEMENT LIST 11. JANUARY 8, 2003 COMMISSION MEETING HIGHLIGHTS 12. OTHER BUSINESS/ANNOUNCEMENTS 13. ADJOURNMENT (The next meeting will be February 10, 2003 in Riverside.) MINUTES TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES Monday, November 18, 2002 1. Call to Order The meeting of the Riverside County Transportation Commission (ROTC) Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) was called to order at 10:00 a.m., at Banning City Hall, 99 East Ramsey Street, Banning, CA. 2. Self -Introductions Members Present: Others Present: Bill Brunet, City of Blythe Carol Clapper, CVAG Louis Flores, Caltrans Mike Gow, City of Hemet Mark Greenwood, City of Palm Desert Terry Hagen, City of Indio Jerry Hanson, City of Desert Hot Springs Bill Hughes, City of Temecula Tim Jonasson, City of La Quinta James Kinley, City of Murrieta Eldon Lee, City of Coachella Cis Leroy, SunLine Bob Mohler, City of Palm Springs Craig Neustaedter, City of Moreno Valley Ray O'Donnell, City of Lake Elsinore Kahono Oei, City of Banning Anne Palatino, RTA Juan Perez, County of Riverside Amad Qattan, City of Corona Ken Seumalo, City of Murrieta Tim Wassil, City of Indian Wells Cathy Bechtel, RCTC Shirley Gooding, RCTC Ken Lobeck, RCTC Shirley Medina, RCTC Jerry Rivera, RCTC Technical Advisory Committee Minutes November 18, 2002 Page 2 3. Approval of Minutes M/S/C (Wassil/Hansen) approve the minutes dated October 21, 2002. 4. Public Comments There were no public comments. 5. MEASURE "A" EXTENSION Cathy Bechtel, RCTC, announced that Measure "A" passed at 69.2% and that Riverside was the only county of five in the state that passed the sales tax measure. 6. CETAP UPDATE Cathy Bechtel said that the last date for the public comment period was November 15 on the two CETAP internal corridor environmental documents. She stated that five public hearings are being scheduled to allow the public to provide comments on CETAP in general. Currently, three hearing dates have been scheduled: December 19 in Lake Elsinore; January 9, at the Lake Perris Fairgrounds; and January 15 at the Eagle Glen Country Club in Corona. One will be scheduled in the Winchester area and one in the Temecula area. They will all commence at 6:00 p.m. and will include RCTC representation. The purpose of the hearings is to be able to hear general comments from the public and comments can be received on any alternative. Such comments will assist the Commission in selecting a preferred alternative, probably in the February/March timeframe. 7. 2004 RTP UPDATE Shirley Medina, RCTC, stated that currently projects are going to have federal funding should be included in the 30 -year Regional Transportation Plan. To be sure there is no duplication, she will contact the TAC members to coordinate the project list submittal to SCAG. 8. RCTC PROJECT MONITORING Ken Lobeck, RCTC, said he has updated the tracking sheets with 2002 RTIP information. The 2002 RTIP was approved on October 4. He said he will e-mail the updated sheets to the TAC members. Ms. Medina asked that the sheets be reviewed and Ms. Bechtel pointed out that up-to-date information is needed. Ms. Medina indicated that regarding AB 1012, 3- Technical Advisory Committee Minutes November 18, 2002 Page 3 year old balances are subject to loss if not obligated within a certain timeframe, which is December. She said that regarding CMAQ, approximately $9M still needs to be obligated; however, CVAG has just obligated about $6.9M and there are others that will be requesting obligation between now and December. Any unobligated funds will be requested by RCTC for a six-month extension since the 60 HOV project to Redlands Blvd. will be obligated early in 2003. In response to Carol Clapper's question regarding the 2002 STIP, Ms. Medina stated that projects with the 2002 STIP, as soon as projects were submitted in December, 2001 CTC raised red flags stating the state has a funding crisis and projects will have to be delayed. The CTC adopted the STIP in April, 2002 and those projects that were not programmed in the STIP were going to be included during the fiscal year. She further stated that during the summer amendments were made and the CTC realized they did not have the funding capacity they thought. They stopped approving amendments during the summer and had to look over the funding capacity in the STIP before adding anymore projects. Every county in the state sent in projects, and the CTC said that after October only a certain amount of amendments will be approved and that until the 2004 STIP, there will be no more amendments. She said that all Riverside County projects were submitted but came within a month of the CTC stopping all amendments due to no capacity available in the 2002 STIP. Ms. Bechtel indicated that in previous years, funding was available and projects could be put in whatever year was preferred but because of the funding shortfalls and the severity, it backfired even though all counties were always promised their county share within the STIP period. The CTC is now saying that the STIP year will be the last year now, 2007. At the December 12, 2002 CTC meeting, it will be determined if there will be any funding in 2007. She said that only projects programmed in 2003 are getting approved for allocation now. She further stated that the process is changing on a month -by -month basis. Ms Medina said that she will monitor the STIP projects and will contact those cities that have projects programmed in 2002-2003 as well as 2003- 2004 to make sure they are proceeding as scheduled. 9. SB 821 BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN FACILITIES PROGRAM Jerry Rivera, RCTC, handed out the SB 821 Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities Program Pending Projects list and FY 2002-03 Recommended Technical Advisory Committee Minutes November 18, 2002 Page 4 Funding. He said that in response to last month's committee meeting questions regarding the Commission's policy on SB 821 extensions and staff informed the Commissioners that those concerns would be relayed to the TAC to see if the TAC wanted to take another look at the issue and make a recommendation. He indicated that staff also needs to relay said concerns to the CAC. He explained that one of the hand-outs is a listing of projects that are still on the books from prior years. He said that the bold dates at the top of the sheet indicate when the project was authorized, and that there are a number of projects that technically have lost their funding. He further recommended that the TAC look at this and revise the policy on extensions. In answer to a question regarding the percentage of projects completed in the first year, Mr. Rivera stated that last year approximately 16-18 projects were approved and only 2 or 3 were claimed during the fiscal year. Mr. Rivera specifically asked if the TAC wants to - review the extension procedure or convene a joint committee of the TAC and CAC or just let it go and hope that the Commissioners don't take it upon themselves to do something. Ms Bechtel indicated that the Commissioners could take the stand to implement a use it or lose it policy on the SB 821 funds. A motion was made to have staff return to the TAC with suggestions. M/S/C (Wassil/Gow) 10. NOVEMBER 13 COMMISSION MEETING HIGHLIGHTS Shirley Medina informed the TAC that the Commission approved the TAC's recommendation to take the $6M STIP off the Newport Road extension project and put it on the 79 widening project. Cathy Bechtel informed the TAC that the CETAP projects were nominated by Federal Highway Administration as the state of California's project for environmental streamlining, meaning that although no funding comes with the nomination but it gives recognition that it is an important project that all agencies need to work to expedite the processing of the environmental documents for those corridors, specifically for the two internal corridors. 11. OTHER BUSINESS/ANNOUNCEMTENTS Cis Leroy, SunLine, asked when the funding criteria will be reviewed for future calls for projects and Shirley Medina responded that she is waiting Technical Advisory Committee Minutes November 18, 2002 Page 5 to find out what is going to happen with the current STIP, probably in January when RCTC will know more about the status of the STIP. Louis Flores, Caltrans, announced that regarding the inactive project list, Caltrans' staff will be contacting those who have inactive projects and they are looking at the bridge program. He said that beginning in January, if a project has remained inactive for sometime, and an agency is contemplating another bridge project no action will be taken on the new project until results are apparent on the old project. In response to an explanation of inactivity, Mr. Flores stated that Caltrans has two lists of inactivity — one indicates projects 3 years or older and the other is projects 5 years or older. Craig Neustaedter, City of Moreno Valley, announced that his city is making further progress on the project study report for Reche Canyon Road/Reche Vista, which is an intra-jurisdictional project. The cities of Moreno Valley and Colton have authorized funding for the project and San Bernardino County is taking board action November 19, 2002 and Riverside County board is taking board action the last week in November, 2002. Jim Kenley, Director of Public Works, City of Murrieta was introduced. Cathy Bechtel asked that the sign in sheet be completed and that if representatives have changed, make sure to note so that RCTC's information will be up to date. She announced that RCTC will not have Plans and Programs or Budget and Implementation Committee meetings in November and that all items will go directly to the Commission in December. Juan Perez, County of Riverside, announced that the western county TUMF is going before the Board of Supervisors November 26 for a public hearing. Ms. Bechtel said that the MSHCP was officially released by the County of Riverside on Friday and that each of the cities (probably sent to the City Managers) will get CD's. Mark Greenwood, City of Palm Desert, asked if there will be a TAC meeting in December. Shirley Medina responded that she will be reporting what happens at the CTC, which she can do via e-mail. The TAC agreed to cancel the December TAC meeting. Technical Advisory Committee Minutes November 18, 2002 Page 6 Juan Perez handed out a map of the parking structure at the County of Riverside. Cathy Bechtel announced that the County of Riverside is planning an open house for the new annex on December 11. Ms. Medina said she will send an e-mail to the TAC with further details. She also said that a 2003 TAC meeting schedule will be e -mailed in the near future. 12. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business for consideration by the Technical Advisory Committee, the meeting was adjourned at 11:10 AM. The next meeting is scheduled for January 13, 2003, 10:00 AM, at Banning City Hall, 99 East Ramsey Street, Banning, California. Respectfully submitted, Shirley Medina Program Manager AGENDA ITEM 6 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTA TION COMMISSION DATE: January 8, 2003 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Hideo Sugita, Deputy Executive Director THROUGH: Eric Haley, Executive Director SUBJECT: State Budget and STIP Impacts on Transportation STAFF RECOMMENDATION: 1) Receive and file this report as information item; and, 2) Conduct a discussion of transportation policy priorities to guide future decisions regarding transportation funding cutbacks. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: As a statutory county transportation commission, RCTC depends heavily on state funding to deliver its comprehensive program of transportation projects and services. With the coming of the new year, the Commission must address some of the bleakest news to emanate from Sacramento in many years. Due to lower tax receipts, combined with higher levels of spending California faces a significant budget crisis. Estimates of the state's budget debt have been between $24 and $35 billion. Already, Governor Davis has announced a number of proposed spending cuts in order to balance the State's books. The ongoing State fiscal commitment to funding transportation projects will be undermined even though it previously had been an Administration priority and had received funding increases. As a prime example, the Governor has proposed a reduction of $1.8 billion in his Traffic Congestion Relief Program (TCRP). The TCRP was created by the Governor three years ago and enhanced overall transportation investment by transferring the sales tax on gasoline from the general fund. Voters then ratified the program and acted to ensure funding for many TCRP projects by approving Proposition 42, which requires that revenues from the sales tax on gasoline be allocated solely to transportation projects. The Governor's proposed reduction, which essentially suspends the entire TCRP, primarily impacts the State budget for the balance of this fiscal year and for Fiscal Year 2003/04. To further complicate matters for RCTC, the California Transportation Commission has announced that its estimate of available funding in the six -year State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) will fall $4 billion short of its previous Item 8 projections over the next 4.5 years. RCTC allocates Riverside County's share of STIP dollars which are comprised of State gas tax revenues, truck weight fees and the State's share of federal fuel taxes. Instead of reaping an anticipated 4 percent annual growth in STIP revenues, the stark reality is that STIP revenue has actually declined. ASSESSMENT OF THE SHORTFALL In terms of planning and delivering transportation projects, RCTC faces a double- barreled challenge from the State. At this time, it is impossible to ascertain the overall financial extent of the State budget and STIP deficits on transportation projects. What further complicates matters is that most of the major projects planned by the Commission, including the reconstruction of the 60/91/215 Interchange and improvements at 91 Freeway/Green River Drive, rely on funding from multiple sources. For example, both of these projects rely on TCRP, STIP, and local funds. With multi -billion dollar deficits facing both the STIP and the state budget source of the TCRP, the Commission faces the possibility of either cutting, phasing or delaying projects. How much will the Commission have to cut? The answer to that question might not be available until decisions are made by the California Transportation Commission and the State Legislature. Still, with a loss of $1 .8 billion in TCRP statewide in just one year and a $4 billion shortfall in the STIP, during the next five years, RCTC will be required to temper its expectations. As an estimate of what that might entail, Riverside County's normal share of STIP revenue is 4.8 percent of the overall state STIP. This is based on Riverside County's share of the State's population. The STIP itself is split 75-25 with 75 percent being allocated by local agencies such as RCTC for its local priorities. With a $4 billion shortfall, $3 billion that would normally be passed down to local counties could be eliminated. Multiplying $3 billion by RCTC's share would mean that the Commission might see a pro rata reduction in STIP funds of $144 million. The Commission should also be aware that the remaining 25 percent of the STIP known as the Interregional Transportation Improvement Program (ITIP) could also be jeopardized. $72.5 million of ITIP funding is currently identified for improvements at the 60/91/215 interchange, SR 91 /Green River Drive Interchange, Route 86 Relinquishment, Route 71/91 interchange, Route 60 Valley Way to 1-15 freeway widening, and a parking structure at the North Corona Main Metrolink Station. With ITIP funds being allocated on a statewide discretionary basis it is Item 8 virtually impossible to estimate what a pro -rata reduction may be for Riverside County projects. While the reduction will likely be significant, CTC will likely take into account project significance to the State highway system, project readiness and whether or not the project is fully funded. The Commission will also be impacted by the suspension of the TCRP, because $110 million has been allocated for six projects within Riverside County. While the TCRP is considered to be a multi -year program and could be revived in the future, the Commission must consider that absolutely no State dollars will be spent on TCRP projects from the General Fund in the coming year. The Governor has proposed that administration of the TCRP be handed over to the California Transportation Commission. That means that the TCRP projects will likely be lumped in with STIP projects and that new priorities will probably need to be determined to establish spending priorities for what will be a diminished amount of funding. The only positive news that can be gleaned from the current crisis is the standing allowed Proposition 42. While the State will be depleting this funding source for the upcoming fiscal year, the law limits the circumstances under which this can take place. The Governor must issue a resolution stating that there is a fiscal emergency (which has already been done) and the transfer must then be ratified by the Legislature on a 2/3rds vote of both houses. Assuming the State can make a number of significant cuts this year, act affirmatively on discussions of revenue enhancement and stabilize the budget, Proposition 42 revenues may be available again in the future. Another source of funding that has already been discussed by the Commission is the Federal government through its reauthorization of the transportation omnibus funding act known as TEA -3. The following item on the Commission's agenda will address proposed revisions of our Federal legislative program. PROJECTS AT RISK In addition to Attachment A, which outlines the TCRP projects, Attachments B, C and D detail every project identified for state funding which has not been allocating by the CTC. The STIP is a multi -year funding program which projects out multiple years for revenue and expenditures. STIP dollars can be reserved for projects in future years, but are not obligated until they are programmed by RCTC and officially adopted by the California Transportation Commission. Item 8 In RCTC's case, the 1988 Measure "A" program was based on an expectation that 50 percent of the Measure "A" Highway Program would be funded through State and Federal sources. Therefore, Federal and State funding is an important component of RCTC's current Measure "A" program. Due to the STIP shortfall, the Commission must consider the possibility that many projects may have to be either scaled back, phased, seek other forms of funding or be delayed. Unfortunately a number of the projects are freeway interchanges, local street widenings and intersection improvements that are located throughout Riverside County. This includes high profile projects such as the improvement of the 1-10/Ramon Road Interchange, the improvement of the I-10/Indian Canyon Drive Interchange, and improvements at the SR 91/Green River Drive Interchange. The fact that a portion of the Commission's STIP funds have been identified for local projects is pointed out because the CTC will likely provide priority to State Highway ("on system") projects over local system improvements. There are only six projects that are slated to receive TCRP funding (See Attachment A). In addition to the Measure "A" projects (60/91/215 interchange and 91 Widening), the program was slated to fund improvements at 1-10/Palm Drive, widening State Route 60 between the 1-15 and Valley Way, improvements at the SR 91/Green River Drive Interchange and a new interchange at I-10/Morongo Parkway. Neither the Morongo Parkway nor SR 60 projects were suggested by RCTC but were identified as projects in the TCRP program by the Governor. After the successful passage of the Measure "A" extension, staff was planning to bring forward a discussion on transitioning from the current Measure "A" to the beginning of the new Measure "A" extension. The State budget crisis clearly impacts near term discussions on that important work which was to assess the status of the current Measure "A" — what we accomplished, what is left to do, what is our financial capacity and what work can be done prior to 2009 to prepare a running start for the new Measure "A" program of projects. A critical issue that staff must bring to the Commission's attention is that the 2000 Measure "A" Strategic Plan was based on a revenue projection that will likely prove to be optimistic. While staff recommends that Measure "A" revenues be monitored on a quarterly basis, it appears that the Strategic Plan revenue forecast may be as much as 9.5% ($76.9 million) overstated. This results in the highway program impact estimate to be $24.4 million. Item 8 POLICY CONSIDERATIONS During the next few months, the Commission will obtain more information from the State regarding the severity of the budget problem. Much of that information will become available this month due to scheduled meetings of the California Transportation Commission. The release of Governor Davis' budget revise will also take place in January. RCTC will be faced with a number of policy considerations in determining how to respond. The following are a number of questions that must be considered by the Commission during this meeting and in future meetings when prioritizing projects. These questions include: • Should 1988 Measure "A" projects take absolute priority when allocating remaining available State dollars? • Should the Commission's requests for federal funding in TEA -3 be considered as a potential backfill for lost State dollars? • How should the Commission handle the east/west county STIP formula funding split in determining project funding priorities? • The California Transportation Commission could force local transportation planning agencies including RCTC, to prioritize improvements to the state highway system above local projects. If that happens to take place, how should RCTC respond? • What process should the Commission use to prioritize projects? For example: should an ad hoc Committee of the Commission be formed to consider the issue for the next few months or is the current Committee and Commission structure adequate for the needed discussion of project priorities? NEXT STEPS Commission staff will return to the Budget and Implementation Committee on a monthly basis with an update on State funding issues. The need for Commission action to prioritize projects will be necessary during the next few months. This will include a restructuring of project priorities that could result in some projects being phased or not receiving funding. The true extent of the problem will be more apparent as additional information becomes available from Sacramento. Item 8 State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) State Highway System Projects 2002 STIP Unallocated Projects - On the State Highway System Note: Amounts stated are n (000s) .. .::.. ..: . ..:� :... . 'tda,.^�..�. . t. t.:.a. w . .. .... ,' ; .. . . .. .. ..� . c '.>. . .. .: ..; kj.Fik-1 -..'$.... ,, ttr,,. S �a ';s ;. } 1, ,. .• .. .. - : .,. . ..., .. .@. . ., a, .. ... ........ S t t t . ... .. , - R <. ;. �: .. ,. , )x 1 -. . „. s- � a _,. k<@ rltt' ... ::. . ... . _ .. }@ , �.0 s,�lii, . �tt. I .., .l-: : .I 9E c e �, ..:n::\a ,,h �{� � Rl , .... R 1., �.c': at. ; ,�� -. o'�:Y. .,,, .'ka n:A .1;; "��?l �E�"�li i II a�\ 7 p1 ! t. i tR4 :...�tt( a � 1 10 Ramon Rd IC $22,266 $22,266 - - - - Caltrans 1998 STIP Formula Completed PA &ED, PS&E, and R/W Construction programmed in '03/04 2 15 California Oaks/Kalmia IC $11,135 $7,366 - - - City - $3,769 Caltrans/ Murrieta 2002 STIP Discretionary 4th Year Estimated fund allocation date for R/W is 7/1/05. Estimated fund allocation date for construction is 6/1/06 3 15 Magnolia IC $8,252 $6,418 - - - City - $1,834 Caltrans/ Corona 2002 STIP Discretionary Proposing AB 3090 4 60 Jct Rte 15 to Valley Way - Add HOV Lane & Mixed Flow Lane $38,046 $3,261 $9,785 $25,000 - - Caltrans 2000 STIP Discretionary Completed PA & ED. PS & E is 85% complete. R/W is 45 % complete. 5 79 Near Hemet/San Jacinto Realignment $5,099 $225 - X Fed. Demo - $3,899 City - $1 ,200 RCTC Pre 1998 6 79 Keller to Domenigoni - Widen 2 to 4 Lanes $93,950 $10,857 * $6,000 - - X Unfunded - $73,105 Caltrans 2002 STIP Discretionary 4th Yr - $1.323 PA &ED in progress, $1,323 RIP allocated. `$6,000 transferred from Newport project. 7 91 Green River Rd IC & Aux Lane $19,244 $3,889 $5,938 $5,000 - Fed, Demo - $4,417 Caltrans 2002 STIP Discretionary 8 91 N. Main Corona Metrolink Station - Parking Structure $11,000 $11,000 - RCTC N/A PA & ED in progress. $500 allocated. 9 91 EB 91 to NB 71 Connector (Design & Engineering, MinorCaltrans RAN Only) $24,078 - $2,224 Unfunded - $21,854 N/A PA & ED in progress. $2,204 allocated. 10 215 El Cerrito Dr to Jct 60/91/215 Cons IC, Add 2 HOV Lanes, SB Truck Climbing Lane $379,334 $269,861 $48,814 $20,000 X CMAQ - $7,000 STPL - $13,327 Caltrans N/A Completed PA & ED. $20,332 allocated design Totals: $612,404 $324,143 $77,761 $50,000 Total Other: $35,446 Total Unfunded: $94,959 Fund Descriptions: City - Local City funds, CMAQ - PA & ED: Project Approval & Enviironmental Document PS &E: Plans Specifications & Estimate Congestion Mitigation Air Quality, Fed Demo - Federal Demonstration, STPL - Surface Transportation Prog. ate Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) Local Highway System Projects 102 STIP UNALLOCATED - LOCAL ARTERIAL SYSTE M Note: Amounts stated are in (000s) ". :. . .t.. .. .. . f� ! i ! .�P .... Ft .. , � Ft .,fir. D. , . ., r . •_sc .c �g .... / .. 1 .. :: .., . '� iii .: I'I � � _f W. . . .. �. ,. y +n�5.�� .te E" lil .. k r .�. ':' ... , ay � '�! �- m :;- � ,-'.: r ; . .. ,:: . .n�< A?F :. a t ..,�T)�} ,,,' a A4i�.C.> ,�t�' '�vty 3. .. ,. Y, . .k ... -i .., ... .F� �ES.��C�_F, P� =E� l.. ��. .�� .., '�. :�,1Ct D� F i . � �1 .>.. _C? ,,.._, �� tom[.: J �w =1 7 R State Street Widening $1,334 $1,262 .._ _ City - $72 Hemet 1998 STIP Discretionary Allocation package submitted to Caltrans on 12-18-02 Project received 20 -month extension until Feb. 2003 Hobsonway Arterial Improvements $5,130 $1,875 - _ TEA - $176 City. - $329 Blythe 2000 STIP Formula Allocation package submitted to Caltrans on 9-09-02. Lincoln Ave Improvements $1,411 $671 _ - _ City - $740 Corona 2000 STIP Discretionary PA & ED in progress. Estimated fund allocation for construction is 7.1-03 Ramon Road Improvements $2,025 $1,021 - - _ City - $695 County - $318 Rancho Mirage 2000 STIP Discretionary Allocation extensi on deadline 3-30-03. Valley Way/Armstrong Rd Reco nstruct/Widen 2 to 4 Lanes $3,385 $1,564 - - - County - $1,821 Riverside County 2000 STIP Discretionary PA & ED in progress. Estimated fund allocation for construction is 5-15-03 Pierson Blvd. Rehab. $851 $638 City - $231 Desert Hot Springs 2000 STIP Formula PA & ED in progress. Allocated PA & ED on 5-20-02. Gene Autry Trail Bridge and Road Widening $2,631 $1,842 - - - City - $789 Palm Springs 2000 STIP Discretionary PA & ED in progress. Allocated PA & ED on 8-22-02 . Indio Boulevard Improvements $433 $325 - - - City - $108 Indio 2000 STIP Formula M iles Ave/Clinton St - Widening, Construct 4 Lane Bridge $7,000 $2,040 - - - County - $4,960 Riverside County 2000 STIP Discretionary PA & ED in progress. Estimated fund allocation for construction is 3-15-04 Ramon Road Improvements $1,847 $1,385 - - - City -$1,270 Cathedral City 2002 STIP Formula Dillon Road Grade Separation $10,704 $4,559 - - - PUC - $5,000 City - $610 PVT - $535 Coachella 2002 STIP Discretionary Estimated fund allocation for construction is 6-1-06 Corona - Advanced Traffic Management System (ATMS) $3,260 $1,990 - - - City - $1,270 Corona 2002 STIP Discretionary PA & ED in progress. Estimated fund allocation for construction is 7-10-03 & ED: Project Approval & Environmental Document & E: Plan Specifications & Estimates f:/users/Preprint/Staf/KL/Special January Meeting/Jan 8 2003 RCTC Meeting Project List ESERVATION PR OJECTS ON THE LOCAL ARTERIALS !3 De Frain Bvd - Turn Ins, Jefferson Street - Widen Road and Bridge Planning, Programming, and Monitoring City - $9,544 Totals: $20,498 $10,954 $0 $0 $0 $9,544 Riv County Riv County RCTC 2002 STIP Formula 2002 STIP Formula 2002 STIP 2% off top AGENDA ITEM 7 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: January 16, 2003 TO: Technical Advisory Committee FROM: Marilyn Williams, Director of Regional Issues and Communications SUBJECT: Inland Empire Intelligent Transportation Systems Architecture Plan BACKGROUND Lead by the Riverside County Transportation Commission and San Bernardino Associated Governments, various Inland Empire transportation agencies collaborated on an ITS Strategic Plan in 1998. Since the development of this Plan, the FHWA published a Rule (ITS Standards and Architecture) and FTA published a companion Policy to implement Section 5206(e) of the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA -21). This Rule/Policy seeks to foster regional integration by requiring that all ITS projects funded from the Highway Trust Fund be in conformance with the National ITS Architecture and appropriate standards. The Inland Empire ITS Strategic Plan preceded the Rule/Policy and is, therefore, in need of an update in order for the region to continue on a path to conformance. The City of Fontana has been proceeding with the design, development, and integration of an Advanced Transportation Management and Information System (ATMIS). The project is nearing completion. At this time, residual budget has been identified. The City of Fontana has offered, and the regional transportation planning agencies have agreed, to apply a portion of the remaining ATMIS Project funds to the development of an Inland Empire Regional ITS Architecture Plan. The consultant for the Fontana ATMIS Project, and now for the Inland Empire Regional ITS Architecture, is Iteris, Inc. Iteris, Inc. will perform the work as authorized by the City of Fontana, the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), the San Bernardino Associated Governments (SANBAG), the Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC), and the District 8 Offices of the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans D8). The official Notice to Proceed for this phase of work was received and dated as of December 12, 2002. Ms. Teri Argabright, from Iteris, Inc., will discuss the origin, plan, objectives, and expected outcomes for the newly -initiated Inland Empire Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) Architecture Project. ITS uses electronics, communications, and information processing in an integrated manner to improve the efficiency and safety of roadways. An ITS Architecture provides the framework within which a system can be built by defining the pieces of the regional transportation systems and the information that is exchanged between them. Attachment 1: Scope of Work Attachment 2: ITS Architecture and Standards Consistency Highlights ATTACHMENT 1 Inland Empire Regional ITS Architecture Project Scope of Services The Project will proceed under nine tasks: • Task 1 — Project Management • Task 2 — Develop Steering Committee and Identify Stakeholders • Task 3 — Define Region and Update ITS Inventory • Task 4 — Determine Needs, Services, and Operational Concepts • Task 5 — Analyze Functional Requirements and Define Interfaces • Task 6 — Develop Project Sequencing • Task 7 — Develop List of Agency Agreements • Task 8 — Develop Maintenance Plan • Task 9 — Produce Final Report The actions and the products for each Task are outlined below. This Project is operating under an expedited project schedule. Note that all draft deliverables will be made available for electronic download from a project web site. (Hard copies will also be made available, by request, to those stakeholders without electronic access.) Comments will be due to the consultant team within two weeks from availability of deliverable for review. Instead of producing a final version of each deliverable, a comment disposition memorandum will be released and all comments will be incorporated, as appropriate, into the overall project final report. Task 1 — Project Management Actions: A1.1 Manage project resources, budget, schedule, and product quality. Products: P1.1 Project Management Plan P1.2 Monthly Status Meetings P1.3 Monthly Reports and Invoices P1 .4 Project Presentations Task 2 — Develop Steering Committee and Identify Stakeholders Actions: A2.1 Develop project description materials. A2.2 Confirm steering committee members. A2.3 Conduct task workshop to identify key stakeholders. A2.4 Develop mailing/contact list. Products: P2.1 Informational Flyer P2.2 Project Web Site/Updates P2.3 Task Workshop (combine with Task 3) P2.4 Stakeholder List Task 3 — Define Region and Update ITS Inventory Actions: A3.1 Conduct task workshop to define regional ITS boundaries and establish architecture timeframe. A3.2 Identify existing ITS inventory information and identify gaps. A3.3 Identify sources of needed ITS inventory information. A3.4 Develop specific methods for retrieving information (i.e. survey, phone call, face-to-face meeting, etc.) A3.5 Create an ITS inventory. A3.6 Review inventory with stakeholders. A3.7 Map inventory elements to National ITS Architecture. Products: P3.1 Task Workshop (combine with Task 2) P3.2 Draft ITS Inventory Report P3.3 Comment Disposition Task 4 — Determine Needs, Services, and Operational Concepts Actions: A4.1 Identify any previously created information on regional needs/services. A4.2 Identify potential sources of regional services that address needs with ITS solutions. A4.3 Identify candidate services that meet the regional needs. A4.4 Associate services with elements in the ITS inventory. A4.5 Determine roles and responsibilities of key stakeholders. A4.6 Determine operational concept level of detail. A4.7 Document operational concept services/scenarios. A4.8 Prioritize the list of services/scenarios. A4.9 Conduct task workshop to discuss results. Products: P4.1 Draft Needs, Services, and Operational Concepts Report P4.2 Task Workshop P4.3 Comment Disposition Task 5 — Analyze Functional Requirements and Define Interfaces Actions: A5.1 Determine functional requirements level of detail. A5.2 Identify and prioritize the ITS elements for which functional requirements need to be developed. A5.3 Create the list of functions addressed by ITS elements: A5.4 Coordinate this list with National ITS Architecture. A5.5 Develop guidelines for which information exchanges will be documented with architecture interconnects. A5.6 Identify pre-existing ITS element interconnects and architecture flows that share information. A5.7 Consider and select or discard an interconnect/architecture flows for each pair of entities that might need to share information. A5.8 Create an interconnect/interfaces list. A5.9 Select ITS standards for each architecture flow. A5.10 Conduct task workshop to discuss results. Products: P5.1 Draft Functional Requirements and Interface Report P5.2 Task Workshop P5.3 Comment Disposition Task 6 — Develop Project Sequencing Actions: A6.1 Identify technical issues associated with each regionally significant project. A6.2 Identify institutional issues associated with each regionally significant project. A6.3 Develop list of activities/projects to resolve issues. A6.4 Conduct task workshop to provide stakeholders with means to rate the projects for implementation as short, medium, and long-term. A6.5 Develop project sequencing and dependencies. Products: P6.1 Task Workshop P6.2 Draft Project Sequencing Report P6.3 Comment Disposition Task 7 — Develop List of Agency Agreements Actions: A7.1 Match projects with list of ITS stakeholders that will need to agree on terms. A7.2 Research stakeholder agencies for any pre-existing agreements. A7.3 Determine agreement type and sample clauses. A7.4 Identify issues associated with development of agreements. A7.5 Develop list of activities to resolve issues. A7.6 Create a sample agreement. Products: P7.1 Draft List of Agency Agreements P7.2 Comment Disposition Task 8 — Develop Maintenance Plan Actions: A8.1 Determine the process for programming of projects in regional transportation plan. A8.2 Develop a plan for including ITS projects in the regional transportation plan using the ITS architecture. A8.3 Develop a procedure for distributing the regional ITS architecture for use in ITS project development. A8.4 Determine the ITS architecture maintenance responsibility. A8.5 Define the process for accepting and incorporating changes. A8.6 Develop a stakeholder notification plan for updates. Products: P8.1 Draft Maintenance Plan P8.2 Comment Disposition Task 9 — Produce Final Report Actions: A9.1 Compile all other reports, incorporate comments (as appropriate), and develop a final comprehensive report. A9.2 Conduct task workshop to share project results. Products: P9.1 Draft Final Project Report P9.2 Task Workshop P9.3 Comment Disposition P9.4 Final Project Report ATTACHMENT 2 ITS Architecture and Standards Consistency Highlights New! Rule and Policy on Intelligent Transportation Systems Architecture and Standards Conformance THE 1998 TRANSPORTATION EQUITY ACT FOR THE 21ST CENTURY (TEA -21), section 5206(e), requires ITS projects funded from the Highway Trust Fund to conform with the National ITS Architecture and appropriate standards. The Federal Highway Administration's (FHWA) new ITS rule and the Federal Transit Administration's (FTA) new ITS policy implement the law by requiring development of regional ITS architectures. THE NATIONAL ITS ARCHITECTURE AND REGIONAL ITS ARCHITECTURES The National ITS Architecture provides a common framework to guide practitioners in developing regional ITS architectures. It promotes interoperability and helps in choosing the most appropriate strategies for processing transportation information. It defines system components, key functions and organizations involved in developing an architecture as well as the type of information to be shared between organizations and parts of the system. It's unlikely that any single metro area or state would plan to implement the entire National ITS Architecture. Therefore the Rule and Policy require that the National ITS Architecture be used to develop a framework for how ITS may be implemented locally. This is referred to as a regional ITS architecture. A regional ITS architecture is a local implementation, or subset of the National ITS Architecture, developed with local needs in mind. Local participants define the region based on needs for information sharing and coordination. The region can be a metropolitan, Statewide, multi -State, corridor or service area. ARCHITECTURE REQUIREMENTS 1. If a region has or is deploying ITS projects, a regional ITS architecture must be developed by April 8, 2005 (which is four years from the effective date of the Rule and Policy). 2. If a region has not yet deployed an ITS project, a regional ITS architecture must be developed within four years after its first ITS project deployment. 3. Modifications to existing systems in order to conform with the National ITS Architecture are not required by the Rule and Policy. It's anticipated over time, however, that regional ITS architectures would call for changes to legacy systems in order to support local desires for integration. PROJECT REQUIREMENTS 1. Until a regional ITS architecture is in place, all major ITS projects must have a project level architecture to ensure proper consideration of regional integration. 2. All ITS projects must be developed using a systems engineering approach. This requires project developers to consider all phases of the system's life cycle from system conception to installation. The stages of planning, design, procurement, deployment, operations, maintenance, expansion and retirement of the system or subsystems must be considered. 3. Once a regional ITS architecture is in place, all subsequent ITS Projects must be designed in accordance with the regional ITS architecture. STANDARDS REQUIREMENTS 1. The Rule and Policy require that, as appropriate, federally funded ITS projects use ITS standards adopted by the U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT). 2. No ITS standards have been adopted by the USDOT as of June 2001 but over 80 ITS standards are in development by various Standards Development Organizations (SDO). 3. As an SDO-approved standard matures and its market expands, USDOT may decide to adopt it through a formal rulemaking process. TOOLS -- OUTREACH, TRAINING AND TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE Online Resources 1. Go to USDOT's ITS website www.its.dot.gov for information on the National ITS Architecture, consistency, and ITS standards. You can also submit questions online from this website. 2. Brochures, fact sheets, frequently asked questions, and other documents can be downloaded from the site; order current documents from itspubs@fhwa.dot.gov. 3. Subscribe to USDOT's ITS newsletter at http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/exit.cfm?Zink = http://www.nawgits.com/jpo for the latest ITS news from USDOT and partners in the National Associations Working Group for ITS. Training A number of relevant courses developed by USDOT are available through the National Highway Institute (http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/exit.cfm?Zink = http://www.nhi.fhwa.dot.gov/), the National Transit Institute (http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/exit.cfm?link = http://www.fta.dot.gov/research/implem/ nti/nti.htm) and the ITS Professional Capacity Building Program (http://www.pcb.its.dot.gov/) websites. National ITS Architecture Training Instructional training on the National ITS Architecture is available from USDOT. Both introductory and technical instruction on the use of architecture is offered. (http://www.its.dot.gov/aconform/Training.htm) National ITS Standards Training Instructional training on the National ITS Architecture is available from USDOT through the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE). Information on course content and scheduling is available on the ITE website at http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/exit.cfm?link = http://www.ite.org/. Integrated ITS maximizes the benefits of individual ITS investments. Workshops and Technical Assistance Despite a wealth of resources, questions still arise that go beyond general information and training and require specific assistance. USDOT plans to develop workshops and other technical assistance programs to support both regional ITS architecture and ITS standards implementation. Additional information on content and delivery plans for these workshops will be available later this year on USDOT's Office of Travel Management web site at (www.ops.fhwa.dot.gov/Travel). USDOT stands ready to help ITS practitioners understand and implement the new Rule and Policy. The first place for technical assistance is the FHWA Division Office or FTA Regional Office. FHWA Division Offices and Resource Centers: http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/field.html#fieldsites http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/fieldoff.htm FTA Regional Offices: http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/exit.cfm?link = http://www.fta.dot.gov/office/regional Headquarters Team: Ron Boenau (USDOT Federal Transit Administration) ronald.boenau@fta.dot.gov Mike Freitas (USDOT ITS Architecture Consistency) michael.freitas@fhwa.dot.gov Mark Kehrli (USDOT ITS Architecture Consistency) mark.kehrli@fhwa.dot.gov Bob Rupert (USDOT ITS Architecture Consistency) robert.rupert@fhwa.dot.gov Mike Schagrin (USDOT ITS Standards Program) mike.schagrin@fhwa.dot.gov Publication No. FHWA-OP-01-031 EDL No. 13478 (www.its.dot.gov/welcome.htm) http://www.its.dot.gov/ Toll -Free Help Line 866-367-7487